JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778)

Jean Jacques Rousseau, the great French writer of the eighteenth century,
elaborated his theory in his famous work, The Social Contract, published in 1762.

The State of Nature

The starting point in Rousseau’s theory was the “traditional” state of nature.
What the state of nature actually meant to him, Rousseau himself was neither clear nor
consistent about it. But “throughout the fluctuations of his usage, one idea alone appeared
unmistakable, namely, that the natural state of man was vastly preferable to the social or
civil state, and must furnish the norm by which to test and correct it”. Back to nature was his
cry. He had a romantic belief in the excellence of primitive simplicity and denounced the
artificiality of “so-called civilized existence”. He maintained that the progress of science and
arts had tended to degrade the morals of man. Return to natural simplicity, he held, was the
only cure against all corruption and degradation rampant in civil society. But it did not mean
that Rousseau wanted to destroy civil society.

Rousseau’s man in the state of nature was a “noble savage”, who led a life of
primitive simplicity and idyllic happiness. He was independent, contented, self-sufficient,
healthy, fearless and “without need of his fellows or desire to harm them. It was only the
primitive instinct and sympathy which united him with others. He knew neither right nor
wrong and was away from all notions of virtue and vice. It was, thus, a pure,
unsophisticated, innocent life of perfect freedom and equality which Rousseau’s men
enjoyed in the state of nature.

But these conditions could not last long. Two things emerged to corrupt this
perfect scene. One was increase in population and the other was dawn of reason. With the
increase in population, economic progress moved apace. The primitive life of simplicity and
idyllic happiness disappeared. Fixed homes established family, and the institution of
property emerged, sounding the knell of human equality. Man began to think in terms of
mine and thine. When man began to think in terms of mine and thine there emerged the
institution of private property.

Emergence of civil Society: The equality and happiness of the early state was,
thus, lost. Mankind went rapidly into a state of war resembling Hobbes’ state of nature. The
rich and the poor were ranged against each other in unrelenting hostility. That was a
disquieting state of affairs and every individual became anxious to get rid of it. The escape
was found in the formation of a civil society. Natural freedom gave place to civil freedom by

1
a social contract of each with all and with each. As a result of this contract a multitude of
individuals became a collective unity – a society.

Social Contract Theory

General Will: There was only one contract according to Rousseau, which was
at once social and political. The individual surrendered himself completely and
unconditionally to the will of the body of which he became a member. The body so created
was a moral and collective body and Rousseau called it the General Will. The unique feature
of the General Will was that it represented collective good as distinguished from the private
interests of its members. It was the will of all the citizens when they were willing not their
own private but the general good; it was the voice of all for the good of all. Rousseau went
further and said that my will which willed the best interests of the state was y best will and
it was, indeed more real than y will which willed my private interests. All actions were the
result of the will, but my will for the good of all the state was morally superior to any other
will, private or associational, which might from time to time determine my conduct. The
General Will being the compound of the best wills of all citizens willing the best interests of
the community and its lasting welfare, it must be sovereign.

The General Will, though by definition could only deal with matters of public
not private interests, was alone the judge of what constituted public or private interest. The
General Will, moreover, could not allow anything to stand between it and the complete
loyalty of its citizens. It was, Rousseau believed, better that other associations than the state
should not exist. But if they did, they must always be subordinate, and if any conflict of
loyalties should ever occur, citizens must always obey the state because it was infallible and
the custodian of the real interests of all.

The General Will must also, Rousseau said, “be inalienable and indivisible.”
Hence it could not be represented in parliamentary institutions. “As soon as nation appoints
representatives”, he said, “it is no longer free, it no longer exists”. England, he declared, was
only free during elections, after which it “is enslaved and counts for nothing”.

Rousseau made a clear distinction between the government and the

sovereign people. He said that General Will could not be an executive will. Rousseau meant
by government only the executive power. Law-making was not a function of government
but of the sovereign. The people entrusted their executive power to their agent, the
government. Government was, thus, only a subordinate authority.

Rousseau believed in direct government by citizens, who themselves in public

meetings should make the laws, without being betrayed by elected representatives. Law is,
accordingly, an expression of the General Will, which is the will of a society for the common
good.

2
 Another important result of the contract is that life and liberty of each
member of the community is secured and founded on the General Will of the society as a
whole. Equality and liberty, Rousseau said, are ensured, because each individual makes
complete surrender of himself and all his rights to the community. While doing so, he
receives his person and rights back again as an indivisible part of the sovereign community.
No individual can, therefore, justifiably disobey the General Will. Moreover, by obeying the
General Will the individual simply obeys himself as he himself is the creator of the General
Will. Nor can the individual complain of any coercion. Real coercion, Rousseau says, never
occurs in society. Even criminals wills his own punishment.

An individual can act capriciously when he wants something different from

what the interests of the community demand. He does not, then, rightly knows his own
good or his own desires. The General Will can only know it. Therefore Rousseau repeatedly
said that the General Will is always right. It cannot be wrong, because the General Will
stands for the social good, which is itself the standard of right. In this way, Rousseau
brought about a thorough submergence of the individual in the state. The state, to
Rousseau, is a collective person, and “I obey it because only in so doing I am I really myself,
am I truly free”. Freedom, in brief, is obedience to self-imposed laws. The law of the General
Will is the highest law.